The Communication Cube


I found these videos triggering ideas, it mentions that the energy sytems shouldn't be designed by bureaucrats but by engineers.
The videos are related to the push for electric vehicles: while they are an improvement they aren't produced and used without energy consumption.


 
Peony and I had a "lovely" conversation about the moon yesterday.

P: I saw the moon last night, it was mooning me.
Me: It was was it?
P: Yes I saw its buttocks.
Me: :|
 
I think all countries were involved in war at some point. I wouldn't know if you can link it to capitalism. As mentioned capitalism is just a small aspect of a country. An economic system that allows you to produce and sell your own things to me doesn't imply you would increase the need of war.
There's this theory that Capitalism eventually leads to huge finance behemoths (because in a capitalist society with constant growth, lenders will, on average, get returns on their investments, which means that they'll get more and more rich and since capitalism favors monopolies/oligopolies, the bigger ones will end up eating up the smaller ones, leading to a handful of finance companies holding most of the capital).

So a country now has a finance sector that has a lot of capital, so much that they can't invest it all inside the country. It could make everyone rich in that country, but that wouldn't be profitable. So they invest in foreign countries that don't have that much capital ("less advanced" countries). This is called Imperialism.

So you end up with a few countries dividing the world between themselves. The finance capital keeps growing but soon there's no country left to invest in. So what's the next step? Use your wealth to influence your country and have it declare war on other countries so that you can have new places to invest (especially since you'll have to rebuild everything after the war).

So according to this theory, Capitalism can be linked to war.
 
  • Sad
Reactions: rSl
Google Analytics is declared illegal. At last. Sweden has fined a company $1.1 million and another one $30000 for using Google Analytics.
I hope people will start removing shit from their websites. I've heard there's a similar functionality in free software with matomo, but I've never used either.
I wonder how many Google Analytics users really look at the data and act profitably on it, or simply have it there because it is what everyone else does and some boss wants to be shown some chart sometimes.
 
I wonder how many Google Analytics users really look at the data and act profitably on it, or simply have it there because it is what everyone else does and some boss wants to be shown some chart sometimes.
Oh yes, how many times have I had people from sales/marketing/product ask me to add analytics and then either ignoring them (except for the occasional chart with some bogus metrics that everyone is supposed to have) or wondering how to interpret them (especially after I remind them that we need to have explicit consent to retrieve them so we only have analytics from a minority (10%) of users)
 
There's this theory that Capitalism eventually leads to huge finance behemoths

How do you start a business without a loan? Without financial institutions providing credit it would just be those with rich parents starting companie. Um..

capitalism favors monopolies/oligopolies

Actually it’s the opposite. Capitalism depends on competition** hence trust-busters (activision).

invest in foreign countries that don't have that much capital ("less advanced" countries). This is called Imperialism.

Imperialism traditionally involves force: invade & pillage. There is now “implicit” imperialism where one nation is undesirably** dependent on another. Why don’t countries ban Nike, Coke, Netflix, Mario, etc? China would if they could but that could trigger revolution.

One theory as to why the British Empire retracted is it became more cost effective to acquire goods through trade as opposed to stealing through force. Imperialism was also desirable for England because it kept unemployment low, smoothed economic cycles and ultimately reduced the likelihood of revolution.

So according to this theory, Capitalism can be linked to war.

We know the war in Iraq was sponsored by US oil companies. But generally interdependence between nations has a pacifying effect. Don’t disrupt profitable supply chains.

Capitalism is an ownership structure that cedes control from governments to private entities. The idea is democratic in nature, allowing individuals to take part and steer companies. Great idea, funneled capital that produced everything we love [including the pyra .. (components)]. Now I’d complain that corporations have eclipsed individuals, which i suspect was unintended. It’s not decentralized nor democratic anymore.

So capitalism is broken but I think the bigger problem is globalization. It hinders stability.

America is the smartest country they set themselves up to lead the world 100 years ago and now they do. America is waaaaay freer than France. It’s residents have more opportunities, have bigger homes, are fatter, dumber and happier.

If you don’t like capitalism move to Russia.

And fuck globalization.

Happy 4th of July.
 
Actually it’s the opposite. Capitalism depends on competition** hence trust-busters (activision).
It's one of the paradoxes of Capitalism: it needs "fair competition" to work, but if you leave it unchecked (with trustbusters and other kinds of regulations) it leads to oligopolies. A company with access to more capital, or with a competitive edge that lets it gain temporary dominance of the market will be able to either buy its competitors or wage a price war (selling this below the costs) until they bleed to death.
Then you end up with a handful of big companies whose executives can all stand in the same meeting room and agree on price fixing.

That's why there's this saying that Capitalists hate Capitalism (remember when Peter Thiel said that "competition is for losers"?)
 
The idea is democratic in nature,
Democracy is one person one vote.
Capitalism is one dollar one vote.
Those with more dollars can do more things and have more effective rights. Private entities who own more capital have more control, and individuals with more money can steer more, or bigger, private entities.
Capitalism is anti-democracy. Capitalism is anti-government whether the government is democratic or not. In capitalism power can only come from capital. Any other power must be eradicated.
Capitalism is the surrendering of debate on the public good and the idea that the winner should take it all, or will take it all anyway, whether he should or not, so we may as well designate the winner success as the public good and quit the debate.
It's not more sophisticated than those medieval "God trials" where whoever won the fight was deemed being right. Capitalism looks more peaceful, but it's not really any more peaceful, it just kills by starvation instead of sword. IT also kills by war, but that's hardly a capitalistic invention.

USA citizens are not happy (just required to pretend happiness by their social contract).

And current Russia is capitalistic, anyway.
And fuck globalization.
Yes, there you're right.
Maybe immaterial goods can be globalized, somehow. But physical stuff should be local. Free movement of people is OK (migration, not tourism). Free movement of goods and capital between constituencies is undemocratic.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: rSl
Capitalism is one dollar one vote.
That's not capitalism's fault. Any country will fail if wealthy individuals bride leaders. If dollars are votes would be true, a vote still doesn't mean the same as oppression it can be used for good or bad purposes.
If you had a country without central leadership you could still have individuals owning production and selling products and services.

If a person is smart or lucky, they'll gain more wealth over time. More wealth generates more wealth, that is true for more systems you use.
For example: Monkeys naturally choose a leader and this leader will have loads of power and more options to procreate, that's not capitalism.
An aggressive monkey can dominate a group and be their leader, appearing like a natural leader, but he'll be killed by the group eventually.
A government must prevent these negative influences to generate oppressive forces and incentivize people to pursue positive goals.

Maybe immaterial goods can be globalized, somehow. But physical stuff should be local. Free movement of people is OK (migration, not tourism). Free movement of goods and capital between constituencies is undemocratic.
No more chocolate for us I guess. :(

USA citizens are not happy (just required to pretend happiness by their social contract).
There was a happiness index for that. The list has these criteria: GDP per capita, Social support, Healthy life expectancy, Freedom to make life choices, Generosity, Perceptions of corruption.
It has the US on spot 15, which appears to still be higher compared to China (64) for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report
But I do agree the country has the appearance of getting less free over time: business has the appearance of having too much influence on the government, like pharmaceutical companies and big tech.
 
That's not capitalism's fault. Any country will fail if wealthy individuals bride leaders. If dollars are votes would be true, a vote still doesn't mean the same as oppression it can be used for good or bad purposes.
Capitalism makes sure that private entities have more power than elected governments, so people have to buy its power.

If you had a country without central leadership you could still have individuals owning production and selling products and services.
Yes. Anarchocapitalism is a thing. Might be a thing I can't spell, though...
But wasn't there an idiom "vote with your wallet"? That's the notion that money must give inviduals power. And in pure capitalism, with or without government, the power accumulated by accumulating money shouldn't be limited. If there are limits, then it's not real capitalism. But then that power will grow above government power. So even if the government is democratic (might be or not), some tycoon will have more power than that government, and so votes won't be so useful (that's not a reason to abstain,
but it's possibly a reason to not believe democracy is complete).
If a person is smart or lucky, they'll gain more wealth over time. More wealth generates more wealth, that is true for more systems you use.
That'd be in a capitalistic system. And it's not always true. What if the lucky or smart person doesn't want to earn wealth and just uses luck or skills to play banjo?
In fact being smart does not guarantee any gain of wealth in capitalism. There are lots of poor geniouses in history in capitalistic systems.
Being lucky might mean you're poor but in love or whatever.
It's just that the capitalists will want you to think that poor people are poor because they are not smart (so they deserve it), so will only judge smartness by capitalistic performance.
Likewise a capitalist will think the lucky lover is not really so lucky...
I agree that in a capitalistic system having lots of wealth is necessary to gain even more lots of wealth.
But the opposite is not always the case. You can have lots of money and then go bankrupt (unless some government bails you out because youi're too big to fail or something).
More wealth can generate more wealth, or it can not. But generating wealth without initial capital is not possible (must not be, because then the only principle that holds the system together falls apart, if capital can be generated out of nothing, then nobody can be sure anymore their money is worth anything)

For example: Monkeys naturally choose a leader and this leader will have loads of power and more options to procreate, that's not capitalism.

An aggressive monkey can dominate a group and be their leader, appearing like a natural leader, but he'll be killed by the group eventually.
A government must prevent these negative influences to generate oppressive forces and incentivize people to pursue positive goals.
So ? It's not capitalism. I didn't say all possible problems are caused by capitalism.
Btw, did the group killing the leader just set up their government ?

No more chocolate for us I guess. :(
Did you ever try that Carob chocolate alternative? It's not so good, but one can get used to it.
At least they used to grow carob trees around here I guess one could still do it.
There was a happiness index for that. The list has these criteria: GDP per capita, Social support, Healthy life expectancy, Freedom to make life choices, Generosity, Perceptions of corruption.
It has the US on spot 15, which appears to still be higher compared to China (64) for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report
But I do agree the country has the appearance of getting less free over time: business has the appearance of having too much influence on the government, like pharmaceutical companies and big tech.
Well, those indexes are very relative things. Even if USA is 15th, how many others are lower because of USA capitalism ? Just like the tycoon being potentially happy does not justify capitalism, one particular capitalist country being happy (if it was, which I don't believe) does not justify capitalism. I think if USA citizens were happy they wouldn't shoot one another so often, or get so many addictions, or suffer racism, etc. I guess their way to be happy is not mine. Or their way to say they're happy is not what I consider happiness. Whatever.
But a party is a parrty, enjoy your 4th of July anyway those who celebrate it...
 
Btw. the summary of what I think sounds something like this: "Capitalism is considered the best economic system for bringing about economic growth and a sustained increase in the number of goods produced. It can be argued that capitalism transforms individual self-interest into collective good for society."
Doesn't mean the system is perfect. Especially the gigantic organizations that can force their way due to having way too much capital, but as mentioned before that can go both ways: good/bad. What is good or bad is usually based on your perspective, but 'fair' might be more applicable here (without cheating or trying to achieve unjust advantage). Capitalism might not always be fair and governments can try to fix that. Social programs can help to alleviate the pain of the unlucky ones. Most happy-rated countries have such a mix. On average good cheap products are good for everyone. And if those don't exist, you could make them yourself and make a lot of money that way. There should be (government) incentives to not create cheap products by stealing, forcing people to work, destroy the environment, etc.
Replacing a system that works but isn't always fair with a different system, just because, that hasn't proven to work doesn't sound like a great idea.

That'd be in a capitalistic system. And it's not always true. What if the lucky or smart person doesn't want to earn wealth and just uses luck or skills to play banjo?
They are free to do so. Smart is a lose definition I guess, if you can come up with a safe structural method to provide value to others you can generate and income. Which can be playing a banjo or being famous on TikTok I guess.
You can be lucky and be born handsome or gifted in the banjo-area.
But generating wealth without initial capital is not possible (must not be, because then the only principle that holds the system together falls apart, if capital can be generated out of nothing, then nobody can be sure anymore their money is worth anything)
Not sure if I understand. If you go onto the street in a city and sing a nice song you can generate an income. If you do so often you gain wealth and buy yourself a banjo. With a bit of luck you'll be a famous local banjo singer.
Some people become famous on TikTok, you could argue lots of capital was used to create TikTok but for the user it's not so capital intensive.

So ? It's not capitalism. I didn't say all possible problems are caused by capitalism.
Btw, did the group killing the leader just set up their government ?
Some monkeys actually trade food for services. I wouldn't say they are capitalist, but I think it's natural to trade things. If you trade things there will always be single person on the top with most traded goods. That person can just be lucky, bit like playing monopoly (you can be good at the game but still lose). Monkeys do have a hierarchy with a leader, that probably doesn't count as a government though. Groups managed by a naturally selected leader are more stable compared to oppressed groups. Humans can also be controlled by force but the system is inherently unstable and requires lots of effort to suppress the revolting activities. In a capitalist system the counter-effect is the voting with your wallet. You don't often see it but if people hate a company it usually fails even if it appears to big to fail.
Unnatural behavior, like failing banks that are being bailed out, are usually still existing due to government interventions (using tax/peoples money). And if a bank does fail usually the companies are fine while the peoples money is gone, that doesn't feel fair either.
Usually highly valued things gain attention, wealth, power, etc. while less valued things are less likely to gain those things. Trying to nullify this can be done by force but usually making things fair this way is a lose-lose situation.

Did you ever try that Carob chocolate alternative? It's not so good, but one can get used to it.
Thanks for the tip, I never tried it. I'm actually not that fond of chocolate, so if I would never have it again I wouldn't be so sad. Who knows, I might like Carob.
Obviously from our perspective we could do more locally. But not every country is so lucky. Africa imports lots of food from Europe for example. Should they grow them locally: I think yes, but that isn't always possible. If a country has a thing in abundance, shouldn't it be able to trade that with stuff from a different country that also has some stuff in abundance?

I think if USA citizens were happy they wouldn't shoot one another so often, or get so many addictions, or suffer racism, etc.
I probably agree. They once did a study on rats: one group got enough food to survive and the other group had food in abundance. The abundance group got lazy, fat and put a lot of attention on grooming each other.
Other studies show that people earning more then 150k a year are also less happy. So there must be a sweet spot between being not self sufficient and abundance.
And regarding the shooting: there is actually some equality in the US regarding guns. In history physical strength could be used to suppress physically weaker people (like an average man vs. woman; adult vs. child). But with a gun everyone can kill, taking away the physical strength advantage. In the US you see very bad examples of this, like 4 year olds killing adults, which are usually highlighted. But the concept does somewhat sound nice from making things more equal for everyone (if you ignore the killing people part).
 
Last edited:
Btw. the summary of what I think sounds something like this: "Capitalism is considered the best economic system for bringing about economic growth and a sustained increase in the number of goods produced. It can be argued that capitalism transforms individual self-interest into collective good for society."
That's only true if you define economic growth as what capitalism does, but then it's circular.
If you define economic growth as increasing the time a community can survive, so maximizing suistanability, then capitalism will fail.
But then, just what community ? The humans in a city ? in a country ? humanity ? the living beings on earth ? For lack of agreement it falls down to: myself. And then yes, in many cases capitalism is the best system to reckless care for yourself and the rest be damned.
Capitalism is just a self-preserving system based on a very abundant resource: human greed.
Most of the rest you say is based on assuming the premises you seem to try to prove: capitalism is good because it is good and when it isn't it needs fixing by governments, or good citizens or something, because it is good, but not perfect.
And regarding the shooting: there is actually some equality in the US regarding guns. In history physical strength could be used to suppress physically weaker people (like an average man vs. woman; adult vs. child). But with a gun everyone can kill, taking away the physical strength advantage. In the US you see very bad examples of this, like 4 year olds killing adults, which are usually highlighted. But the concept does somewhat sound nice from making things more equal for everyone (if you ignore the killing people part).
Come on! With a gun the richest one who bought a better weapon or more ammunition kills the poor alright. So capitalism changed the unfair natural condition to a unfair capitalistic condition. In capitalism only money can give advantadge. That's not equality, that's preserving inequality or rather ensuring the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
If you can't even have a government stopping people from owning machines whose only purpose is murder, that means you have an ineffective government, which is the only one capitalism can tolerate.
 
As far as I know, there are no proof that capitalism explains the economic growth. Most of the growth comes from technological advances and I've seen no evidence that capitalism led to these.

However there are a few cases that show that you can have either without capitalism: Imperial Russia in 1919 was a backwater country, lagging behind the other great powers. The USSR wasn't exactly a textbook communist country but you can't say it was a capitalistic one either and it did get an impressive growth that turned it into one of the two most powerful states. I'm not saying it's an example to be followed and that life there was great, but if you just focus on economic growth you can't deny that they were able to immensely boost the country's economy in a relatively short time frame without a capitalist economy.

As for the technological advances, most of the biggest advances we had in the past 50 years (the space programs, the Internet, etc.) come from public research. And even when you look closely at innovation coming from the private sector (for example the "personal computer") you realize that most of the time the people responsible for it didn't do it for money but out of passion, and those who did it for greed often stifled innovation in the pursuit of profit (aggressive patents, suing hobbyists, walled-gardens, etc.).
 
I usually get the feeling people complain about other things about capitalism than I see as a problem. It appears the best way we have at the moment to run an economy. I also assume anything better will replace capitalism.
Any faults found in any economic system should be improved upon by, for example, a political system. There are many arguments that I agree with but don't see why it's specifically the fault of capitalism.
Next to that I often get mixed feelings about these discussions, not particularly this one btw. For example: people complaining about capitalism using all the results of big businesses (on an iPhone using Youtube streaming while in a Tesla), while also living in a capitalist country. You can always complain, but I does look like complaining without understanding the impact of their remarks. For example: should be just abandon the current economic system and replace it with something else (for example communism) and everything is fine? Because I doubt that people in positions of power will be less corrupt or our environment will be better off. I hope most people agree we need a healthy planet and people are free and cared for. Wasteful behavior like current rates of consumption don't appear to fit into that picture. But a lot of the problems I see can also be handled by a free-market economy. The person that finds out a cheap, easy and good way to remove CO2 from air will be a rich person for example. And if that person doesn't care about wealth, the money can be invested in other good causes like having exceedingly good wages for the employees of the company and top tier educational facilities. Governments can do something similar by using taxes, but that's not an economic system. So a good mix of a healthy economy and a proper government could make it work, which could be a mix of capitalist and socialist systems.

In capitalism only money can give advantage.
Capitalism lets money flow to value; it doesn't determine what has value itself. Apparently people like iPhones even though they are usually more expensive compared to other phones. People think the device has value and they provide the money to Apple, Apple doesn't force you to buy their product. If any competing product delivers similar value for a better price that company would get all the money.
If you have a product that you think everyone should buy but people don't agree it has value, you'll not get any money. The only way to sell such a product is to force people to buy it.
If Apple is a bad company, and everyone agrees this is true, they can stop buying products from Apple. As companies like making money, they'll adjust or stop existing (unless the government steps in and bails them out).
So who determines what has value: people. And a government can steer the value part, by adding a pollution tax for example. Any polluting product will be more expensive and the market will do the rest.
If a government doesn't steer it's economy the cheapest products will probably sell best, which could be wasteful and poorly paid labor products. Large companies will always try to make more money and when too big it could lead to monopolistic positions.

And even when you look closely at innovation coming from the private sector (for example the "personal computer") you realize that most of the time the people responsible for it didn't do it for money but out of passion, and those who did it for greed often stifled innovation in the pursuit of profit (aggressive patents, suing hobbyists, walled-gardens, etc.).
Capitalism doesn't mean you need to be greedy. If you have a passion for you work people can support you by using your products and services. Capitalism doesn't determine what you need to do.
If a person wants to build a sustainable enterprise they'll aim to provide a steady value to their customers base. If you mix a sustainable enterprise with passionate people you might have the perfect mix.
I do see that there can be a clash between those two goals. If you give away all value directly, you'll not be sustainable as a company (if that's your goal). That's usually where competition comes in, they force you to provide the most value possible and be sustainable at the same time. And again, governments can intervene by adding incentives to make it easier for companies that align with their ambitions to be sustainable.
Governments could also run those companies directly, but there is no real incentive to do it efficiently.
Btw. patent trolls, walled-gardens, suing hobbyist, those practices should be made illegal in my opinion.

So capitalism changed the unfair natural condition to a unfair capitalistic condition. That's not equality, that's preserving inequality or rather ensuring the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
Free guns for everyone, I think they US might like that proposal :p
It feels like you have the position inequality shouldn't exist. Equality is impossible, but you should try to achieve it.
You could make the inequality gap much smaller, so if you serve your community you're rewarded and if not you still have the basics. It's not equal, but more equal.
The problem I see in the US it the gigantic gap between the rich and poor. If you are homeless but you don't want to be (I've seen many that want to be homeless for some reason, maybe it's just the routine instead of actually wanting to be homeless though), you should have the opportunity and get the support to improve your situation. Also the term 'wealth' can be sometimes be used disingenuous: as you can own something of value which is expressed in money, but you don't own that money until you actually get rid of it. Governments sometimes tax this potential money, like the value of your house increased (but you didn't sell your house).

@TeDaDeS You just playing devil's advocate here?
I wonder what triggered that question ;)
 
I completely agree that we should do whatever we can to improve what we have but there are two problems:
1. There are structural flaws that are very difficult to fix. Busting monopolies and regulating industries is tough when they can resist the regulation by paying 10 times more annually than the government that's trying to regulate them (see IBM antitrust). Maybe it can be done, but it'll take a serious dedication (which we don't really have currently, the past 40 years have been more about deregulation than regulation) and also a lot of time. Which brings me to the second problem

2. We have a climate emergency that needs urgent changes. And every serious studies done on the subject led to the conclusion that the only way to do it is to produce less. Which, in our capitalistic world, means "de-growth" (a word I don't like because producing less doesn't necessarily mean having worse living conditions: making people sick and healing them leads to more "growth" than keeping people healthy). So if we enact these changes without making any change to our economic system, we'll get into a deep crisis.

As for criticizing capitalism while using tools created by capitalism, it's just because you cannot do any other way. It's like trying to live without a car in the places that were built for cars. No matter how much you want it, you won't be able to do it without structural changes that you cannot do alone. And the nature of capitalism makes it really hard to live in a non-capitalistic way in a capitalist society. You might be able to survive in a small commune but anything bigger than that has always been crushed by force.

And finally, I really hate the "it's the best solution we have" line. It reminds me of Thatcher "there's no alternative" or the phrase "it's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism". So far no system has ever been able to handle every situation. That's why a healthy society needs to be able to challenge its systems and be able to experiment new ones. If you can't, your system will end up facing a situation it can't handle (like the climate emergency) and it'll crash and burn, killing many people until the survivors build something new in the ruins that are left.
 
It's one of the paradoxes of Capitalism: it needs "fair competition" to work
The necessity of the regulator was always clear. The US has a long history of trust-busting, which is never easy. This means telling rich & powerful people they can't be as rich and powerful anymore. It means hurting very profitable businesses, hurting profits in the short term to benefit profits (stability, competition, etc) in the medium term. The Activision case is a very good example. The regulator is pissing off M$, who are major political backers no doubt. I think it's the right choice but maybe xbox gamers don't.
there's this saying that Capitalists hate Capitalism (remember when Peter Thiel said that "competition is for losers"?)
Thiel is being smug.
Democracy is one person one vote.
Capitalism is one dollar one vote.
Exactly. But dollars are now funneled through institutions & mega asset managers so things have changed. Capitalism is rather centralized.
If a person is smart or lucky, they'll gain more wealth over time
Actually the criteria is hard work. And I think it's true, if you work harder you will probably have more wealth. That's quite fair isn't it?
Capitalism makes sure that private entities have more power than elected governments, so people have to buy its power.
Yes. The US ceded control to the markets, put things in place to stimulate growth and invention. Contrast this with Russia & China, who both have tremendous natural resources, highly educated populations, massive industrial capacity & huge internal markets. But instead of the market choosing which companies exist it's mandated from Beijing, and they invariably get it wrong and you end up with inefficient companies that lose money but continue to operate, and everyone suffers except the shitty companies and the dictators continue to pretend that they can effectively steer an economy.
In fact being smart does not guarantee any gain of wealth in capitalism. There are lots of poor geniouses in history in capitalistic systems.
Yep. I'm poor. :cool:
As far as I know, there are no proof that capitalism explains the economic growth
Capitalism is simply how companies get funded. Capital is used to grow companies. Literally.
As for the technological advances, most of the biggest advances we had in the past 50 years (the space programs, the Internet, etc.) come from public research
I don't where you got this information. I don't believe it's true. Again, compare the US to Russia & China who have a fake private sector. They don't innovate they just benefit by plagiarizing the West.
I have half baked theory that the (private) video game industry pushed digital technology the most. Possibly more than defense, academia, private research. The video game industry just has so much capital funneled into it.
 
I really hate the "it's the best solution we have" line.
Did I say that? If regarding capitalism: from all economic systems we tried, it appears to fair the best. Doesn't mean it's the best system, I think it's the best of the ones tried which is somewhat of a low standard.
I applaud any country trying something different.

2. We have a climate emergency that needs urgent changes. And every serious studies done on the subject led to the conclusion that the only way to do it is to produce less.
I think it's somewhat of a double edged sword. You need to find the best solution by following intermediate steps. You need advancements to find an suitable product that is environmentally friendly to replace others.

Actually the criteria is hard work. And I think it's true, if you work harder you will probably have more wealth. That's quite fair isn't it?
Hard work is a good trade but it's also like consistency, it's only valuable if you do something in a good way.
If you work really hard to produce low value products you might generate an income, but not as much as a person making higher valued items.
What has value is the point you might be aiming at: sometimes people can't attribute value themselves correctly yet. Artist run into those issues a lot it seems; or our environment.
 
Back
Top